Apple should accept this and have the courts make them essential standards and then collect megabucks.
Even if they only collect 1 dollar per patent that's 4 bucks per ever single android device out there. Kerching!!!!
That is far more acceptable than paying lawyers billions
ON THE OTHER HAND
Google have just backed up Apple in proving that these patents are unique, oops!

This is interesting. Let's say Apple wins convincingly in courts around the world, and all touchscreen phones are found to violate their IP (granted, this would be extreme and unlikely). Will courts ban touchscreen phones? It's unlikely Apple will grant a license to anyone. Then what?

Similarly, Apple could not patent 'unlocking a phone'. That's generic. They could (and did) patent a very specific method of doing so.

And they did which we find has prior art and even video from an earlier device, Realistically though, what they patented on the phone already has prior art even in the physical world. There are sliding switches everywhere so many could argue that sliding a switch (virtual or physical) is a natural act which has been around for decades and long before Apple was even a company. That however did not stop some yahoo from approving a patent on that specific action (again, one that has been naturally used for decades)

See both sides have very valid points. And these are points that should have been considered *before* this patent was issued. They no more deserve this patent than I do for "method of sliding a switch to turn on electricity".

Ah, it's "Don't be evil". I only mention the difference because I'm sure there's some weasely explanation some anti-Apple whozit will give for why the "difference" matters.

😏

Nice correction and pedantically speaking there is a clear difference. Google's motto uses the present-tense subjunctive verb referring to the self as a whole whilst what I wrote refers to an action. So one could argue that good people (or companies) could sometimes do something deemed evil because they are inherently flawed because they are made by man. Do no evil, on the other hand, will refer to any action that could be construed as evil regardless of the person (or company) as a whole since it's possible for a bad person to do good things and a good person to do bad things.

That said, one could also interpret to mean a suggestion from Google to others so they can take advantage of them more easily. I prefer that one. 😷

This bot has been removed from circulation due to a malfunctioning morality chip.

It still amazes me how many people spend so much time trying to prove that Apple wasn't the first at something. Multi-touch supposedly was all the rage in 2006. Tablets existed before the iPad (duh!), Sony pioneered the ultraportable notebook, etc. But yet Apple was the first to bring to market a multi-touch smart phone and sell it in large quantities. Apple may not have invented the tablet but they've certainly defined the modern tablet. There is no comparison between sales of the iPad and sales of older PC tablets. And if Sony is to thank for thin and light laptops how come so many today are esentially MacBook Air clones? And how come the whole Ultrabook campaign from Intel/OEM's came AFTER the MacBook Air?

I could give a crap less about prototypes or concepts. That's not absolute proof that what Apple did would have been done anyway, Jony Ive often talks about how they try to make/do things that seem obvious, seem inevitable, that their solutions often belie the complexity of the problem. How come the modern Android phones only came into existence AFTER the iPhone? If multi-touch was inevitable how come no phone had it before the iPhone? How come Steve Ballmer mocked it and said it wouldn't succeed in the enterprise because it didn't have a physical keyboard? Of course with hindsight being 20/20 you can say all these things were inevitable (just like HP says aluminum and glass laptops are inevitable). But Apple was able to use these technologies to successfully bring products to the market that sold in large quantities.

See both sides have very valid points. And these are points that should have been considered *before* this patent was issued. They no more deserve this patent than I do for "method of sliding a switch to turn on electricity".

But Google appears to contradict that view in their current argument, in that they are implicitly admitting the validity of the patents, and, instead, claiming that they have become necessary and so should be defined as essential standards. As has been pointed out ad infinitum, however, they are only necessary if the goal is to copy Apple's commercially successful implementation, from which one concludes that even though they clearly could implement differently, they don't believe it would be as popular with consumers. And so the patent system could be argued to be working here - protecting Apple's commercial advantage gained from a specific implementation that they developed.

Funny thing is, one of the most blatant examples of ripping oft in the mobile phone arena (behind Samsung and their shameless ripping off of Apple) is Apple's shameless ripping off of the Android notification panel.

I actually agree with Google. On that note, I think their search algorithms have become essential for the industry. As much as I've tried switching to Bing or Yahoo, I keep coming back to Google's engine.
Those algorithms should be de facto standards and licensed under FRAND

My single search box quit working in Chrome some time ago. Mucking about with the settings I tried switching the default search engine to Bing - and it started to work again. I suppose if I switched back it would work again, but it's been months now and I've never bothered. In fact I think I prefer Bing now - which has its own biases, but at least isn't trying to direct me to Google properties above all others - with a blatant rejiggering of the search algorithm - and gunking up my results with junk results from "friends" I don't know on Google+ (tho' I see Bing is getting very facebook friendly - but at least that's a site I use and know the names from).

I do love me Google's reverse image search though for sourcing photos people post on social sites..... ...anyway, both keep developing and I try to be agnostic about "believing" in either - and use other tools as well as needed.

Quote:

Originally Posted by SolipsismX

1) Of course they say that now when the entire industry is still playing catchup with Apple but remember 5 years ago how the iPhone was dismissed by so many. That's the problem with having such revolutionary technology and a slow judicial process, by the time it gets to court what seemed alien and unessential just a few years prior could seem essential. This is how technology has always worked.

"One Generation's Invention Is Necessity Of The Next" ~Unknown

2) There are some networking patents i know of, like with cellular air interfaces, that are essential because they do have to work the same across vendors to create a homogenous network, but I see no good examples of Apple's patents that are essential for the industry.
3) At least Google is acknowledging that Apple has patented tech before others. That's more than I can say for the resident trolls of this forum.

I'm on Apple's side in the current case, but looking at the whole deplorable state of IP law and litigation, I remain grateful it wasn't around at the time the Indo-Arabic number system spread around the world. That is, I suppose one could developed algebra, calculus and modern quantum physics with Roman numerals (though a bit difficult with the rights to zero belonging to the I-A patent holder)!) - but def slower and clumsier.....

On the other hand, if Einstein had held the rights to e=mc2, and licensed them to the US gov't, then all we'd have to do is sue Iran in the World Court to stop their nuke program.........

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mac Voyer

This is the first time Google has just come out and admitted the truth we already know. The iPhone is too good to be patented. It has become a human right, not just a competitive product. At least we can have an honest debate.

Quote:

Originally Posted by SpamSandwich

Hahaha....ha.......... I hope you were kidding...

No. I agree... ...Slide to Unlock is right up there with the 4th Amendment!!

Quote:

Originally Posted by fredaroony

Why would you "hate" a company? What has Google done to you personally that you would use such strong language?

Here's a concrete example: Back when MS was acting like Google is today (before getting its ears pinned back and growing up a bit), they repeatedly sabotaged and undercut many of their ISV's, including WordPerfect, which was (and is) a superior word processing tool. This effected MY ability to work - and undercut the local economy of the state of Utah where I do business. As noted in one prominent publication of the time, after leading WP to believe DOS development was continuing, they also kept jiggering the Windows API's (even though there was supposedly a "firewall" between the Windows and Office teams in Redmond), and the article I read noted that the slogan in Redmond was, "The coding's not done until WordPerfect won't run."

Subsequently, it took WP about 18 extra months to come out with a working Win version and they never recovered from MS' head start. And I still have to use the black box of Word formatting in order to share docs with the world.

And I yeah, hated them for that. Sue me.

Quote:

Originally Posted by tundraboy
Touche! Ayn Rand, the heroine of free-market, anti-goverment nutjobs, died of cancer while on social security and medicare. Perished while suckling on the teat she so despised. What a hypocrite.

All messengers are imperfect (as are all messages for that matter). You want to get into "feet of clay," bring it on with your perfect avatars, my brotha'......

...Rand was an eccentric refugee from the early Soviet Union with plenty of peccadilloes, but brought a useful perspective on society represented almost nowhere else in the world of literature, dominated as the arts are by the left. I'm a writer, and I can tell you the books haven't survived because of the fluid metaphors and great sex scenes... ..hardly great writing in her books... ...but because they contain meaty ideas (whether you agree with them or not) almost nowhere else fleshed out in fiction.

It's the same with our politics. You look at the current election and see (especially this election) a great chance for a real and meaningful debate on two starkly different philosophies on where the country should be headed - which could be highly educational to the populace as a whole. But instead we get a diet of all peripheral (at best!) red herrings all the time - a dog riding on top of a family car 30 years ago, where's the Prez' college papers, signatures on FEC documents when MR was still the titular head of Bain Cap, Birther and Madrassas junk, selected stats, talking points, spin, etc., ad nauseum. And polls, polls, polls focusing on the whole horse race aspect.....

And never a substantive debate about the real ideas espoused by either side.

Gag me with a spoon and call it eating.... ...but debating ideas solely (or mostly) by attacking the personalities of those who espouse them (either the promulgator as a hypocrite or the believers - i.e., as "nutjobs") is the first refuge of the intellectually dishonest and philosophically shallow.

And I still have to use the black box of Word formatting in order to share docs with the world.

That's a perfect description. The weird, unpredictable formatting in Word is the most annoying thing of all the crap Microsoft has foisted on us.

Quote:

Originally Posted by AdonisSMU

Excellent post. I don't know why apple doesn't just accept payment for their stuff rather than injunctions. That's crazy to waste billions in court when they can make billions more out of court.

I think you should be forced to sell your second kidney. You're not using it and you can make more money by selling it than by keeping it.

In the end, Apple's inventions are their own property and they're entitled to use their property however they wish.

Regardless, they're making billions of dollars from selling iPhones. When you consider that Apple makes more money than the rest of the cell phone industry combined, even if they take every penny of profit from the remainder of the industry, it would be less than they make now.

"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"Gatorguy 5/31/13

How do you know Apple doesn't have a working implementation? A working implementation doesn't mean the patent has to be used in a commercial product people can buy. It can be used on a prototype in the lab that isn't ready to be released, yet has still been defined enough to warrant a patent.

For as far as I can see all Apples patents are valid in this respect.
The argument was related to the question what's currently wrong with the patent system.

Google's everything is free business model has been designed so that it's impossible to steal from them. So when they petition lawmakers to legalise theft under some spurious standards claim it's not a surprise.

....
Of course patent trolls don't exist. It's a silly made-up term used by people who don't understand patents OR business.
If I own a patent, I'm free to do whatever I want with it. I can give it away, use it, sell it, or license it. If I choose to sell it to someone, it is then their property to do whatever they want to do with. They can sell it, license it, use it, or do nothing. There is absolutely nothing in the law that requires a patent holder to practice their patent in order to enforce their rights. In fact, the law very specifically does NOT require the patent holder to practice the invention.
What you're calling a patent troll is actually a critical part of the process for allowing an inventor to be compensated for his invention. ...

On the other hand, if the "inventor" can't actually implement his "invention" in some manner, how is his "invention" distinct from simply an idea, which isn't patentable, and isn't in fact considered an invention?

Not requiring an implementation, as was previously required, has allowed the lines between ideas, often vague ones at that, and actual inventions to become hopelessly blurred. (Again, Apple's iPhone patents don't suffer from this confusion, because they have been implemented.)

Patent trolls are very real and they live in this grey area of confusion, where "inventions" without implementations shape shift into whatever the owner claims them to be. With no concrete definition to tie it down, the patent can morph into whatever technology seems hot at the moment.

And patents are not like other property. They are property granted by the government for a very specific purpose. Patent trolls are effectively gaming the system.Edited by anonymouse - 7/21/12 at 3:08pm

Here's a concrete example: Back when MS was acting like Google is today (before getting its ears pinned back and growing up a bit), they repeatedly sabotaged and undercut many of their ISV's, including WordPerfect, which was (and is) a superior word processing tool. This effected MY ability to work - and undercut the local economy of the state of Utah where I do business. As noted in one prominent publication of the time, after leading WP to believe DOS development was continuing, they also kept jiggering the Windows API's (even though there was supposedly a "firewall" between the Windows and Office teams in Redmond), and the article I read noted that the slogan in Redmond was, "The coding's not done until WordPerfect won't run."

Subsequently, it took WP about 18 extra months to come out with a working Win version and they never recovered from MS' head start. And I still have to use the black box of Word formatting in order to share docs with the world.

And I yeah, hated them for that. Sue me.

I dont think you should be sued but I do think you might want to get some help for your anger management issues if this is all it takes to set you off. Much more important things in life...

I believe Google is saying, in a roundabout way, that the patent system is terribly broken, and is stifling innovation.

For the people saying Google should get out of the business, keep dreaming. If it wasn't for Android, iOS6 wouldn't have new maps, notifications, NFC, larger screen, and a bunch of other things innovated on Android. Competition is good, and since Android is the #1 smartphone platform, Apple clearly has some competing to do.

Advantage: Consumer.

Just think Android wouldn't have any of those things without Apple, Microsoft, Palm, Symbian or any of the others they blatantly ripped off.

Better than my Bose, better than my Skullcandy's, listening to Mozart through my LeBron James limited edition PowerBeats by Dre is almost as good as my Sennheisers.

This is interesting. Let's say Apple wins convincingly in courts around the world, and all touchscreen phones are found to violate their IP (granted, this would be extreme and unlikely). Will courts ban touchscreen phones? It's unlikely Apple will grant a license to anyone. Then what?

Apple aren't taking action against "all touchscreen phones", only the one's they feel infringe their IP.

Not "extreme and unlikely" but impossible.

Better than my Bose, better than my Skullcandy's, listening to Mozart through my LeBron James limited edition PowerBeats by Dre is almost as good as my Sennheisers.

Yes, and did Microsoft patent cut and paste on a mobile device? Imagine if that had been the case. Along with use of GPS and an application. Along with rendering a web page on a mobile device. Along with formatting in a music player. Etc., etc. Apple would be f'd had Microsoft went and put a patent on everything everyone else in the mobile industry took for granted.

Imagine if today Kia went and patented a steering wheel, the design of four wheels connected to a automobile body and steered by rack and pinion. That's Apple. The newbie in the smartphone arena (behind Microsoft, Palm, RIM, etc.) comes in and thinks it can patent EVERYTHING about a mobile device. Uh, not so fast there Apple.

There is only so far you can patent something. Imagine if, just imagine, if someone was able to patent just the motion of a toggle switch to turn lights on and off. You would say WTF! But with Apple this kind of blatent abuse of patents is ok because its a mobile device?

While Apple has been granted patents by misinformed morons in the patent office, it is to be seen if they will hold up in court.

"Misinformed morons" huh?

I don't have to "imagine if." Everything is patented. Copy-and-paste is patented, in case you didn't know--and you didn't (US6944821). Dozens of companies own patents related to GPS. Mobile web page rendering. MP3s. All patented. By every company you can name: IBM, Microsoft, AT&T, Motorola, Qualcomm, Apple, Sun, Netscape, Adobe... (and on and on). All patented. And companies sue each over patents all the time. They also cross-license patents to each other. Even Apple. Yes, Apple licenses its patents to other companies (but it can choose which ones to keep for its own secret sauce). This is how the system works.

That is why your theoretical "Imagine if Kia..." example is ludicrous. Everything in a mobile phone is in fact, already patented, yet mobile devices still get made. The mobile phone industry doesn't owe its existence to a lack of patents, as you seem to think. For example, every Apple mobile device can play MP3s because Apple pays a license to Fraunhofer and Thompson. Apple doesn't just declare it "standards essential" to justify infringing on Fraunhofer's patent rights. And MP3s are about as de facto as it gets.

From the online legal dictionary:
"[Latin, In fact.] In fact, in deed, actually.

This phrase is used to characterize an officer, a government, a past action, or a state of affairs that must be accepted for all practical purposes, but is illegal or illegitimate. Thus, an office, position, or status existing under a claim or color of right, such as a de facto corporation. In this sense it is the contrary of de jure, which means rightful, legitimate, just, or constitutional. Thus, an officer, king, or government de facto is one that is in actual possession of the office or supreme power, but by usurpation, or without lawful title; while an officer, king, or governor de jure is one who has just claim and rightful title to the office or power, but has never had plenary possession of it, or is not in actual possession. A wife de facto is one whose marriage is Voidable by decree, as distinguished from a wife de jure, or lawful wife. But the term is also frequently used independently of any distinction from de jure; thus a blockade de facto is a blockade that is actually maintained, as distinguished from a mere paper blockade.

A de facto corporation is one that has been given legal status despite the fact that it has not complied with all the statutory formalities required for corporate existence. Only the state may challenge the validity of the existence of a de facto corporation."

I can almost imagine Google trying to argue that Apple has illegally established an 'de facto standard which the government must rein-in (thereby circumventing the courts), before they kill the whole industry. A staggering hubristic conceit run up the flagpole of popular convenience which they 'know' will be saluted by the scurrilous interwebz nut jobs out there. It reminds me of juvenile playground posturing. It's demeaning and whiny.
It's also consistent with Google's PR where they have repeatedly released statements aimed solely at muddying the waters. They know these provocative sound bites will multiply...and they spend hundreds of $millions more than Apple lobbying politicians do they not? Does any country have enough impartial and knowledgable backbone amongst it's politicians, that we could trust?
Leave it to the courts.

Windows has affected his well being because it has effected him into a state of being frustrated and angry.

That's his problem and his choice to use Windows or not.

Thanks for the spelling lesson too.

That's the spirit - just move the goal posts and hope no one notices. This whole stupid exchange started with you stridently attempting to argue that he should not have an emotional response to a company (originally Google, then it moved on to MS) unless he were personally affected by them. So, now you are conceding that he was affected, but that it was his problem?

Excellent post. I don't know why apple doesn't just accept payment for their stuff rather than injunctions. That's crazy to waste billions in court when they can make billions more out of court.

Because Apple makes great things and they are rewarded with sales and loyal customers. Money is meaningless if you make garbage. That is the DNA of the company that Jobs left behind and hopefully that philosophy will never leave them.

That's the spirit - just move the goal posts and hope no one notices. This whole stupid exchange started with you stridently attempting to argue that he should not have an emotional response to a company (originally Google, then it moved on to MS) unless he were personally affected by them. So, now you are conceding that he was affected, but that it was his problem?

Care to twist words anymore? If he was affected or not is his issue to deal and quite sad to have such an emotional response to a product/company.

Not sure what part of that you cannot seem to understand...

Had enough of you now champ so off to the block list you go! bye bye :)

Because Apple makes great things and they are rewarded with sales and loyal customers. Money is meaningless if you make garbage. That is the DNA of the company that Jobs left behind and hopefully that philosophy will never leave them.

It's actually quite sad that someone would be "loyal" to a company unless you work there of course. I'm loyal to my friends and family but not to any companies I buy products from...

I own many Apple products but only bought them because they suit my needs the best and I will continue until they dont, nothing to do with "loyalty".

That's the spirit - just move the goal posts and hope no one notices. This whole stupid exchange started with you stridently attempting to argue that he should not have an emotional response to a company (originally Google, then it moved on to MS) unless he were personally affected by them. So, now you are conceding that he was affected, but that it was his problem?

Care to twist words anymore? If he was affected or not is his issue to deal and quite sad to have such an emotional response to a product/company.

Not sure what part of that you cannot seem to understand...

Had enough of you now champ so off to the block list you go! bye bye

Clearly struck a nerve there, and fully according to pattern - when he totally runs out of ideas he wheels out the block list. Maybe one day he will put Appleinsider on the block list and the torture will be over.

Maybe Apple has major issues with the way the current situation evolved. And rightfully so. But despite that, clearly multitouch and other technologies are way too critical to be held only for the use of one company.

We might all say google stole this from apple. But if google is willing to pay apple for this privilege, and was willing to pay all along, one could argue that it is Apple that forced google to steal by not being willing to license.

In any case, despite how this plays out, I think in the end Apple will have to accept a lot of money for the past, and a lot of money going forward and license their tech. I think their attempt to get injunctions is only a tactic to ensure that that money is high enough to compensate them adequately. Even their public statements show this. But that is well within Apple's rights and whoever stole their ideas needs to pay them what they want for it.

I actually agree with Google on this one - that Apple should be forced to license. But I think it is also clear that the concept of Fair and Reasonable would be totally different in this case compared to essential patents that have been added to standard pools.

I think it is this point that is the stumbling block. Apple is ready to license but at a stiff price. Google and the other Android theives believe their risk of being asked to pay more in a legal case is low, so they might as well steal. This is a classic game theory standoff - and for such cases it is usually the party asking for too much that ends up "losing". Because to win, they have to fight ALL THE WAY. Any settlement or a simple legal victory would likely win them less than what they are asking upfront. Only a forced settlement under threat of imminent injunction on some important products can hope to get them something close to what they want. That too only after appeals fail!

And Apple also runs the risk that at that sort of forced settlement stage, they might lose the PR battle or attract regulatory attention.

Maybe Apple has major issues with the way the current situation evolved. And rightfully so. But despite that, clearly multitouch and other technologies are way too critical to be held only for the use of one company.

We might all say google stole this from apple. But if google is willing to pay apple for this privilege, and was willing to pay all along, one could argue that it is Apple that forced google to steal by not being willing to license.

In any case, despite how this plays out, I think in the end Apple will have to accept a lot of money for the past, and a lot of money going forward and license their tech. I think their attempt to get injunctions is only a tactic to ensure that that money is high enough to compensate them adequately. Even their public statements show this. But that is well within Apple's rights and whoever stole their ideas needs to pay them what they want for it.

I actually agree with Google on this one - that Apple should be forced to license. But I think it is also clear that the concept of Fair and Reasonable would be totally different in this case compared to essential patents that have been added to standard pools.

I think it is this point that is the stumbling block. Apple is ready to license but at a stiff price. Google and the other Android theives believe their risk of being asked to pay more in a legal case is low, so they might as well steal. This is a classic game theory standoff - and for such cases it is usually the party asking for too much that ends up "losing". Because to win, they have to fight ALL THE WAY. Any settlement or a simple legal victory would likely win them less than what they are asking upfront. Only a forced settlement under threat of imminent injunction on some important products can hope to get them something close to what they want. That too only after appeals fail!

And Apple also runs the risk that at that sort of forced settlement stage, they might lose the PR battle or attract regulatory attention.

Your position really highlights two fundamentally different ways of looking at this, and pretty much defines the question - to what extent should companies be forced to license technology. Historically it has only happened (at least to my understanding) when it is necessary to ensure interoperability of systems, schema or devices from diverse sources.

Does that really apply to UI elements, given that there are generally many ways to achieve the same end, provided that you do not actually want them to look the same, which is kind of the crux of the accusations by Apple?

Maybe Apple has major issues with the way the current situation evolved. And rightfully so. But despite that, clearly multitouch and other technologies are way too critical to be held only for the use of one company.
We might all say google stole this from apple. But if google is willing to pay apple for this privilege, and was willing to pay all along, one could argue that it is Apple that forced google to steal by not being willing to license.

Why should Apple have to license it?

As you point out, historically, that has happened only when necessary for interoperability or when there's an issue like public safety. Neither of those applies here.

There would be no real downside if Google had to push a button to unlock, for example. Or if Google had to find some other way to unlock the phone. There wouldn't be any downside for the market if Google's screens didn't bounce.

There is no societal reason why Google should be able to get away with stealing Apple's technology. The fact that Google is willing to pay is irrelevant. Should I be able to demand your second kidney if I'm willing to pay you for it? Besides, Apple will make more by being able to keep their product differentiated than they would get from the license fees.

"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"Gatorguy 5/31/13